Tej Pal Jain vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 October, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tej Pal Jain vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 October, 2009

Bench: L.N. Mittal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                          Criminal Misc. No. M-25257 of 2009
                          Date of decision : October 06, 2009


Tej Pal Jain
                                            ....Petitioner
                          versus

State of Haryana and another
                                            ....Respondents


Coram:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :      Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman (Legal Aid Counsel)
               for the petitioner


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Respondent No. 2 Brij Bala Jain who is wife of petitioner Tej Pal Jain filed petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) against petitioner claiming maintenance. The petitioner herein was proceeded exparte in the said case as he failed to appear on 20.4.2006. The petitioner herein moved application for setting aside the said exparte order on 11.1.2008. The said application was allowed and exparte order against the petitioner herein was set aside on payment of Rs 1000/- as costs. However, the petitioner herein filed revision petition against said order dated 7.4.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad regarding imposition of costs of Rs 1000/-. The said revision petition has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 25.10.2008. Feeling still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. No. M-25257 of 2009 -2- the instant petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the imposition of costs of Rs 1000/- only.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

At the outset it is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed instant petition through Legal Aid counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner having sought instructions pursuant to order of the preceding date, states that the petitioner is getting monthly pension of Rs 1097/-.

Perusal of judgment of the revisional court reveals that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs 2 lacs from his erstwhile employer probably the amount standing in his EPF account. In addition thereto, the petitioner is also getting monthly pension of over Rs 1000/-. The petitioner had also initially engaged his own counsel in the lower court. In these circumstances, imposition of meager cost of Rs 1000/- only cannot be said to be excessive much less illegal or perverse.

The instant petition is completely devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.



                                                      ( L.N. Mittal )
October 06, 2009                                           Judge
  'dalbir'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court